Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. These three connected writ appeals are filed against same judgment of the learned single Judge in a writ petition filed by the State challenging the order passed on 14-03-2001 by the National Human Rights Commission under Section 18 (3) of the Human Rights Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Act') granting Rs.10 lakhs interim compensation to the complainant before them who was a Senior Scientist in the Indian Space Research Organisation at Valiyamala for implicating him in a false criminal case of espionage and the consequent suffering he had.

2. We have heard Government Pleader for State which filed one writ appeal and both the counsel appearing for the appellants in other two writ appeals and one filed by the victim, the complainant before NHRC and the other by the then D.I.G of State Police who was heading the investigation team and also Additional Solicitor General for the Central Government Parties arrayed and the documents referred to in this judgment are those in WA No.422/2007. The events that led to the filing of the complaint by the appellant before the NHRC and passing of orders under Section 18 (3) of the Act by them are the following.

3. Appellant while working as Senior scientist and Project Head of 5 projects in ISRO was implicated in a case of espionage by the Vanchiyoor Police which registered Crime No.246/1992 on 30-11-1994. Within two days of registering crime, a Special Team of Kerala Police was constituted to investigate the case that was headed by the 3rd respondent who was then D.I.G of Police (Crimes). Information leading to registration of crime for offences punishable under the Official Secrets Act emanated from a lady who was a Mali Citizen found overstaying in a hotel at Thiruvananthapuram beyond the period covered by the Visa issued to her. The appellant being one of the accused named in the crime case was arrested on 30-11-1994 and was produced before the Magistrate Court on the following day which led to his remand to police custody. The appellant was subjected to protracted questioning by the Kerala Police along with officials of the Intelligence Bureau and Research and Analysis Wing of the Central Government. Even though Special Investigation Team was constituted by the State Government for conducting investigation of the case based on recommendation made by the 3rd respondent, the State Government referred the case for investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation on 05-12-1994. Appellant was under detention for few days in police custody and later in judicial custody until 19-01-1995 when the High Court granted bail. Even though appellant along with another Scientist of ISRO and a Contractor having business with ISRO and two ladies from Mali were arrayed as accused in the crime registered by the State police, the CBI after elaborate investigation found that the case booked against the appellant and others was completely false and therefore liable to be closed. The closure report submitted by CBI on 16-04-1996 was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam discharging the appellant and others on 02-05-1996.

4. Very strange events followed after closure of the case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. The State Government on 27-06-1996 issued a notification recalling the consent given to the CBI for investigation which was already over thereby giving way for another round of investigation by the State police. The appellant challenged the notification issued by the Government permitting re-investigation by the police after closure of the same by the CBI which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court, though the challenge made by the State police against the closure of the FIR by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was rejected by this Court. Appellant and others challenged the Division Bench judgment of this court upholding re-investigation/further investigation permitted by the State Government after closure of CBI investigation befor